Restorative Justice and Trauma: Responding to the Needs and Misdeeds of Young People with Trauma Histories

Abstract

Young people that offend evidence higher rates of trauma and post-traumatic distress than non-offending peers. Effects of post-traumatic distress also parallel research on some young people that participate in restorative justice (RJ) meetings who struggle with communication, emotionally withdraw, become agitated or defiant, evidence poor understanding of harms they have caused, or fail to demonstrate empathy or remorse. In this paper I suggest post-traumatic distress may explain some variation in RJ process and outcomes hitherto ignored in existing research. I also suggest research on trauma in young people raises four areas of concern for thinking about RJ as a “trauma-informed” practice, including impacts of trauma and post-traumatic distress on (1) oral language proficiency and non-verbal communication; (2) the experience and expression of emotions; (3) offender perceptions of fairness and respect; and (4) difficulties in behavioural changes following participation in RJ meetings. I conclude with discussion of challenges to and suggestions for using RJ as a trauma-informed practice in youth justice settings.

Full text

Wood, W.R. 2003. Restorative Justice and Trauma: Responding to the Needs and
Misdeeds of Young People with Trauma Histories. Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40653-023-00589-z
PRE-PRINT
William R Wood
Griffith University
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice
w.wood@griffith.edu.au
Abstract: Young people that offend evidence higher rates of trauma and post-traumatic
distress than non-offending peers. Effects of post-traumatic distress also parallel
research on some young people that participate in restorative justice (RJ) meetings who
struggle with communication, emotionally withdraw, become agitated or defiant,
evidence poor understanding of harms they have caused, or fail to demonstrate
empathy or remorse. In this paper I suggest post-traumatic distress may explain some
variation in RJ process and outcomes hitherto ignored in existing research. I also suggest
research on trauma in young people raises four areas of concern for thinking about RJ
as a “trauma-informed” practice, including impacts trauma and post-traumatic distress
on 1) oral language proficiency and non-verbal communication; 2) the experience and
expression of emotions; 3) offender perceptions of fairness and respect; and 4)
difficulties in behavioural changes following participation in RJ meetings. I conclude with
discussion of challenges to and suggestions for using RJ as a trauma-informed practice
in youth justice settings.

2
Restorative justice (RJ) approaches such as conferencing, victim offender
meetings (VOMs), and sentencing or peacemaking circles are commonly used as a
diversionary or post-adjudicative alternatives to conventional youth court sanctions in
most western counties. RJ is legislated for young people in many jurisdictions, and
widely employed for non-violent offenses and first-time offenders. Several countries
also use RJ for cases of more serious and violent offending by young people.
Restorative justice approaches view offending as a violation of social
relationships and moral order (Boutellier, 2012; O'Mahony & Doak, 2017). While
conferencing, VOMs, and circles vary in terms of participation, facilitation, and process,
they also share key characteristics. All ask young people to admit to and demonstrate
accountability for harms caused to victims. All provide victims with opportunity for
direct participation, usually in face-to-face meetings with young people, but also
sometimes shuttle mediation.
i
All utilise facilitated dialogue as a means through which
victims can voice harms caused to them, and young people can take responsibility and
make amends for these harms.
Restorative justice is generally considered a normative response to youth
offending (Bazemore, 2001). RJ meetings are seen as an opportunity for young people
to learn normative values such as accountability, respect, responsibility, and the making
of amends for harms (Bottoms, 2003; Hudson et al., 1996). Thus, one argument of
advocates is that RJ practices work better than conventional court sanctions to help
young people learn, practice, and integrate such values and behaviours into their lives,
through processes that condemn harmful behaviours but affirm self-worth and ability
to make amends for such behaviours (Bazemore & Bell, 2004; Braithwaite, 2001).
Empirical research demonstrates several benefits of RJ meetings. Victims and
offenders report higher satisfaction with RJ compared to conventional court practices
(Sherman & Strang, 2007; Umbreit et al., 1994). RJ may help victims with healing
(Sherman & Strang, 2015), mitigate fear of re-victimisation (Poulson, 2003), and reduce
some trauma symptomology related to victimisation (Angel, 2005; Lloyd & Borrill, 2020).
Youth offenders often demonstrate higher rates of compliance in RJ agreements
(including restitution) than traditional court orders (Latimer et al., 2005; Sherman &
Strang, 2007). Studies also report higher offender perceptions of procedural fairness and
respect (Barnes et al., 2015; Shapland et al., 2007). RJ meetings may also be effective in
reducing offending, although RJ may work better for some offenders than others and
overall research on reoffending is mixed (Piggott & Wood, 2019).
Yet research also shows substantial variation in processes and outcomes for RJ
meetings with young people.
ii
A smaller but sizable number of young people struggle
with accountability, including admitting to harms they have caused and providing
adequate explanation of these harms to victims (Beckett et al., 2005; Bolitho, 2012; Riley
& Hayes, 2018). Some young people also display poor understanding of the effects of
their actions or demonstrate little remorse towards victims (Bolitho, 2012; Choi et al.,
2012; Daly, 2002; Maxwell & Morris, 2012). Victims often receive what are perceived to
be insincere apologies, or no apology at all from young people (Choi & Severson, 2009;
Daly, 2002; Gray, 2005; Newbury, 2011).
Knowledge on why RJ meetings work well for some participants but not others
is limited but growing. Factors that may explain variation in RJ meetings include quality
of facilitation, degree of “readiness” and pre-meeting preparation, offense type, victim
offender overlap, and offender characteristics. Research on offender characteristics has
looked at demographic variables including age and emotional maturity, gender, race and

3
ethnicity, residential instability, and prior offending history as predictors of RJ processes
and outcomes.
My focus is on one offender characteristic that has received little attention
within RJ research and evaluation literature, namely offender trauma. Youth offenders
evidence substantially higher rates of trauma and post-traumatic distress than their
non-offending peers (Abram et al., 2004; Dierkhising et al., 2013). Post-traumatic stress
disorders have also been correlated to increased anti-social (i.e. “acting out”), and self-
harming (i.e. “acting in”) behaviours in young people (Ford, 2012; Fox et al., 2015;
Nooner et al., 2012).
In this paper I suggest trauma and post-traumatic distress may explain some
variation in RJ processes and outcomes hitherto ignored in existing research. Known
effects of post-traumatic distress in young people parallel several challenges identified
in RJ research for young people who struggle with communication, emotionally
withdraw, become agitated or defiant, evidence poor understanding of the effects of
their actions, or fail to demonstrate empathy or remorse. I also suggest trauma research
raises four areas of concern for thinking about RJ as a “trauma-informed” practice in the
context of youth justice. These include impacts of trauma and post-traumatic distress
on 1) oral language proficiency and non-verbal communication, 2) the experience and
expression of emotions, 3) offender perceptions of fairness and respect, and 4)
difficulties in behavioural changes following participation in RJ meetings. I conclude with
discussion of challenges to and suggestions for using RJ as a trauma-informed practice
in a youth justice context.
Restorative Justice and Trauma
I limit my focus to practices that follow Daly’s (2016, p. 21) definition of RJ as “a
contemporary justice mechanism to address crime, disputes, and bounded community
conflict,” where “[t]he mechanism is a meeting (or several meetings) of affected
individuals, facilitated by one or more impartial people.” Daly’s definition encompasses
aspects of RJ, however defined, that are dialogue-driven between victims, offenders,
and other vested parties. These generally include conferencing, VOM, and sentencing or
peacemaking circles.
iii
Also, given the emotive context of the dialogue process in RJ
meetings (Barnes et al., 2015; Rossner & Bruce, 2018) these settings are also ones where
trauma and post-traumatic distress are more likely to have an effect on RJ processes and
outcomes than other approaches that lack face-to-face interaction between parties.
My focus in this article is also specifically on the use of RJ within youth justice
settings as a diversionary or post-adjudicative alternative to conventional youth court
sanctions. RJ is more widely used for young people than for adult offenders. Suzuki and
Wood (2017, pp. 450-451) note several reasons for this including public tolerance and
support for rehabilitative approaches to youth offending, perceived appropriateness of
RJ meetings for youth offenders, and the relative amenability of young people for RJ
interventions.
Throughout this paper I use the term trauma generally to mean Post Traumatic
Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (CPTSD). There are
debates regarding causes, diagnoses, and symptomatology of these disorders which are
beyond the scope of my discussion. However, there is also agreement that some young
people experience harmful events or situations that make them unable to cognitively
and/or emotionally confront and resolve these experiences, resulting in ongoing

4
dissociative or maladaptive psychological, emotional, and somatic effects (American
Psychiatric Association, 2013; Yehuda & LeDoux, 2007).
Substantial research demonstrates high prevalence of trauma and post-
traumatic distress in youth offending populations, and correlation with increased
likelihood, frequency, and severity of offending (Dierkhising et al., 2013; Ford, 2012; Fox
et al., 2015; Nooner et al., 2012). While there is no research that has measured the role
or prevalence of trauma in young people that participate in RJ, there is also no empirical
reason to think evidence on the prevalence of trauma in youth offending populations
somehow excludes young people that participate in RJ meetings.
iv
Deleterious effects of trauma are not contested within RJ literature. On the
contrary, trauma is widely recognised as a problem for some crime victims (Angel et al.,
2014; Zehr, 2008). Research suggests RJ meetings may mitigate PTSD symptomology in
some victims (Angel, 2005; Gustafson, 2018), although a recent systematic review found
strong evidence for this only for symptoms of avoidance and intrusion, but mixed
findings for other PTSD symptoms (Lloyd & Borrill, 2020).
Far less has been written about trauma in offenders that participate in RJ
meetings. Most research and literature considers victims and offenders as discrete
categories within the context of RJ interventions, with victims suffering harms and
offenders causing them (Maglione, 2017). To my knowledge only one empirical study
has been published on the impact and role of offender trauma in RJ processes and
outcomes. Gustafson’s (2018, p. v) study found many adult offenders who had
committed violent offenses were able to “come to peace with much in their own
traumatic histories” by participating in RJ meetings, and victims as well “reported
considerable ‘healing’ and recovery, confirmed by marked reduction in their PTSD
symptoms.” I return to discussion of this study below, as it is both promising and
cautionary in terms of the use of RJ for young offenders with trauma histories.
Aside from this single empirical study there is also a small but growing amount
of theoretical or practice-oriented literature that addresses offender trauma in the
context of restorative justice for youth or adult offenders (Oudshoorn, 2015, 2016;
Randall & Haskell, 2013; Rozzell, 2013; Zehr, 2008). Most of this literature has posited
that RJ is, or can be, in-line with trauma-informed practices and potentially beneficial
for offenders with trauma histories. Randall and Haskell (2013, p. 525) have argued, for
example, “a trauma-informed restorative justice approach has the potential to impose
much greater and more personal and intimate forms of accountability for offenders who
must publicly grapple with the harms they have inflicted and participate in constructing
their own sanctions.” Oudshroom (2015, p. 181) similarly advocates for “adopting a
restorative justice framework for doing trauma-informed desistance,” noting that
“Restorative justice allows for accountability and support, while also addressing root
causes.” Recognizing that RJ and other conflict transformation approaches have often
not taken trauma into account for victims or offenders, Zehr (2008, p. 5) has noted such
approaches must acknowledge “this sense of victimization and the resulting needs –
often for everyone involved, including those who have offended.”
RJ research and practices are thus slowly beginning to grapple with and make
sense of the role of trauma in antisocial and self-harming behaviours. Most of this
literature has assumed RJ practices are or can be trauma-informed in terms of helping
to meet the needs of offenders with trauma histories, while also meeting the needs and
interests of victims. Contrary to this view, I argue existing research on the impacts and
treatment of trauma suggests need for caution about these claims as they involve the

5
use of RJ in youth justice settings. In following sections I suggest several reasons why
trauma and post-traumatic distress may pose unique challenges for youth offenders that
participate in RJ meetings, and may also explain some variations in RJ processes and
outcomes.
Restorative Justice, Communication, and Trauma in Young People
RJ meetings are complex language environments. Young people are asked to give
an accounting of their behaviours, and share their story of what happened and why.
They are also expected to demonstrate understanding of harms they have caused, offer
an apology for these harms when appropriate, and suggest ways they can make amends
to victims and in some cases the community. In some programs, young people are also
asked to voice ways they will address underlying causes of their offending, and how they
will take steps to not reoffend.
Within these expectations Snow (2013, p. 19) argues RJ meetings are “effectively
a ‘second language’ environment for young people whose “receptive and expressive
skills fall many years behind expected levels.” This is a notable problem because many
youth offenders demonstrate lower oral and non-verbal language competencies than
their non-offending peers (Snow & Powell, 2012). It is also clear some young people
struggle with verbal and/or non-verbal communication to the point of adversely
impacting RJ processes and outcomes. Young people are sometimes unable to provide
even basic accounts of their actions or other information related to their offense
(Beckett et al., 2005; Bolitho, 2012). They also sometimes do not understand what is
being asked of them by victims, other participants, or the facilitator (Riley & Hayes,
2018). Verbal and non-verbal demonstrations of empathy, remorse, and “making things
right” are also problematic for some young people, including apologies, which when
offered are often perceived by victims to be forced or insincere (Choi & Severson, 2009;
Daly, 2003; Gray, 2005; Newbury, 2011).
Diminished language skills are linked to impeded cognitive and emotional
development (Berman, 2004) and social disadvantage (Hart & Risley, 1995) in young
people. Research has also increasingly linked these to abuse, neglect, and trauma in
childhood and adolescence (Snow, 2009; Spratt et al., 2012). Young people with trauma
histories may also show decreased attenuation to and competency with non-verbal
communication such as gestures, cues, and facial expressions, particularly in cases of
childhood neglect where they may “have trouble identifying emotional facial
expressions and matching them with the appropriate emotional events, except for in
cases of anger” (McWilliams et al., 2014, p. 704). They may also exhibit attention deficit
problems (Cook et al., 2017), be easily distracted (Spinazzola et al., 2005), and be prone
to fixating on particular words or perceived negative emotions from others, especially
anger. Finally, trauma in young people is also linked to alexithymia, or the inability to
describe and define emotions (Snow and Sanger, 2011).
Restorative meetings for young people with trauma histories may thus pose
several challenges related to verbal and non-verbal language competency. Young people
may struggle to give a sufficient recounting of events, including adequate demonstration
of accountability. They may withdraw, avert eye-contact with others, and answer
questions with short replies or noncommittal gestures. They may struggle to track the
narratives of victims or focus only on specific parts of the victim’s story and description
of harms caused to them. As Snow and Sanger (2011, p. 311) note, “young offenders
who have undetected language impairments run the risk of appearing lazy, rude, or

6
unmotivated, and this may be damaging in a Restorative Justice conference, for both
the victim and the offender.”
Restorative Justice, Trauma, and Emotion in Young People
While trauma may present problems with communication, it can also adversely
impact young people’s experience and regulation of emotions. This is particularly salient
to RJ meetings that, by design, are often emotionally difficult and charged settings.
Participants in RJ meetings are encouraged to express their emotions. Victims in
particular are encouraged to voice the emotional impacts of harms caused to them
(Gray, 2005; Suzuki & Wood, 2017). Anger, fear, guilt, confusion, and shame are all
common emotions in RJ meetings, and as Suzuki and Wood (2017, p. 7) note, “Through
face-to-face dialogue between victims and youth offenders, the [restorative] process is
intended to transform these negative emotions into positive ones.”
Offender Trauma, Shame, and Conflict
One primary emotion RJ meetings are designed to elicit in offenders is shame.
Positive shaming approaches, including Braithwaite’s (1989) theory of reintegrative
shaming, have been integrated into most forms of RJ meetings. Reintegrative shaming
posits that shame can function in two ways: as a negative label or stigma that is
potentially internalised by the young person, or as a condemnation of bad behaviour
that treats the offender as “a good person who has done a bad deed” (Braithwaite, 2002,
p. 258). In RJ meetings there is thus ideally a balance between having young people feel
condemnation for harms they have caused, and providing them with opportunity to
make things right in the eyes of others and in their own sense of self-worth.
The most common outcome used to assess the efficacy of positive shaming is
reoffending. Comparison studies have found in the aggregate RJ works at least as well
or slightly better than conventional court practices (Sherman et al., 2000; Tyler et al.,
2007). Qualitative research, however, has found some offenders that participate in RJ
do not experience shaming as less stigmatising (Harris, 2006), may experience shame
positively but do not think it will impact their future offending (Kim & Gerber, 2010), or
feel guilt or embarrassment and not shame as primary emotions (Harris, 2006; Jones,
2014).
Some of these differences are explainable by quality of program delivery or
variations within RJ meetings. Research from the Reintegrative Shaming Experiments
(RISE) in Australia, for example, found “conference offenders had more stigmatizing
names and labels applied to them, experienced more harassment, and were shouted at
more than offenders who were randomly assigned to court” (Barnes et al., 2015, p. 119).
Other research shows similar examples of negative shaming in RJ meetings (Maxwell &
Morris, 2012). Even when delivered properly, however, the intent of positive shaming is
not always experienced as such and “despite the best intentions, shame may undermine
potential empathetic responses and encourage further antisocial orientations and
behaviors” (Kenney & Clairmont, 2009, p. 282).
Research on trauma suggests further reasons why some young people may not
experience shaming as positive in RJ meetings. Expressions of anger from victims are not
uncommon and even encouraged through respectful dialogue in RJ meetings. Yet, rather
than being habituated to anger, aggression, and emotional conflict, young people with
post-traumatic distress may be more attuned and sensitized to these emotions and
situations (McMackin et al., 2002, p. 178). They may also miss the “positive” messages

7
or cues communicated in RJ meetings, because hypersensitivity tends to be specific to
threat cues such as anger but not for other emotions such as happiness or sadness
(McLaughlin et al., 2020). Thus, in RJ meetings threat cues such as anger and conflict
may be “amplified” for the young person, while positive or affirming messages may not
be given the same weight or notice by the young person.
Young people with trauma histories also frequently experience low self-esteem,
feelings of worthlessness, and self-blame for their victimization (van der Kolk et al.,
2009). Thus, in RJ meetings young people may not be receptive to or able to internalise
“redeeming” or positive affirmations of self-worth. Rather, they may focus on perceived
negative messages or cues in the RJ meeting that reinforce poor self-image and existing
shame rooted in their own victimisation or trauma.
Offender Trauma and Empathy
A second emotion RJ meetings are designed to elicit in offenders is empathy.
Empathy refers to one’s cognitive ability to understand the experiences of others, and
their capacity to share these feelings (Cuff et al., 2016). Victims in RJ meetings often
want to see the offender understands harms they have caused and are willing to try to
make these right (Dignan, 1992; Strang & Sherman, 2003). When offenders are
empathetic towards victims in RJ meetings, they are demonstrating a type of “active”
accountability by validating the emotional experiences of the victim and showing they
can understand the victim’s experiences from their own perspective.
Decreased empathy is a well-known characteristic of offenders, particularly
serious and violent offenders (Van Langen et al., 2014). Lack of empathy, remorse, and
shallow affect – normally called callous-unemotional (CU) traits – have historically been
attributed to genetic or hormonal factors. However, socialisation and environment are
increasingly recognised as etiological factors in CU traits for some young people (Frick
et al., 2003). Empathetic capacity also tends to increase in transition to adulthood
(O’brien et al., 2013), such that low capacity is not necessarily a fixed trait, but for most
young people a more malleable one.
The relative malleability of young people is one reason advocates argue RJ
meetings present an opportunity for young people to learn how to express and
demonstrate empathy. RJ research demonstrates many cases where young people
effectively display empathy and remorse to victims. However, some young people do
not demonstrate clear empathetic or meaningful gestures of remorse to victims,
including lack of and/or insincere apologies (Bolitho, 2012; Choi et al., 2012; Daly, 2002;
Gray, 2005; Maxwell & Morris, 2012). As Bolitho (2012) has noted, lack of demonstrable
remorse or poor affect do not necessarily denote lack of empathy. Some young people
may simply be scared, not know what to say, or feel so ashamed they may say nothing.
However, some follow-up research on RJ meetings suggests this is not just a matter of
perception or miscommunication between participants (Daly, 2002; Newbury, 2011).
For example, Daly’s (2002, p. 70) research on youth conferencing in South Australia
found, “Among the most important things that the victims hoped would occur at the
conference was for the offender to hear how the offence affected them, but half the
offenders told us that the victim’s story had no effect or only a little effect on them.”
A growing amount of research recognises CU traits may emerge as a response to
trauma (Bennett & Kerig, 2014; Kahn et al., 2013), particularly in cases of “betrayal
trauma” (Kerig et al., 2012). Kerig et al. (2009, p. 1215) note, in response to
maltreatment, young people may use “survival coping” where they “outwardly express

8
defiance and callousness toward others while masking inner hopelessness, shame, and
despair.” Such coping is often used to retain or gain emotional control over potentially
distressing situations. This can be exacerbated by hypervigilance to “an excessive range
of threat and danger cues” (Dalgleish et al., 2001, p. 541) in the young person’s
environment, such that young people with post-traumatic distress may perceive
situations and spaces as threatening that others do not, and respond through the use of
survival coping mechanisms that may appear as callous or defiant behaviours to others.
Restorative Justice, Trauma, and Perceptions of Fairness and
Respect in Young People
Offender empathy and shame play important roles in RJ processes and outcomes
because they are core components of “active” accountability to victims and potential
reintegration for young people. An ideal RJ meeting is thus one where a young person
demonstrates accountability and remorse for their actions, victims are able to explain
harms caused to them and receive information from the offender, participants gain a
better understanding of one another, and there is consensus agreement on how the
young person will make amends for harms.
Most RJ meetings achieve some but not all of these goals. Yet even when all
these goals are not met, participants still often report higher satisfaction with RJ than
conventional court practices (Latimer et al., 2005; Strang et al., 2013). One reason for
this is because RJ meetings afford participants opportunity to have their story heard by
other stakeholders and justice system representatives, be listened to respectfully by
participants and the facilitator, and play a decision-making role in the outcome of the
meeting. These elements of RJ meetings are referred to as procedural justice.
Comparison research between RJ and conventional court practices shows RJ participants
report higher perceptions of procedural justice (Barnes et al., 2015; Daly, 2013). Also, RJ
meetings higher in these measures show better satisfaction for participants than those
that do not, even in cases when other RJ goals such as emotional restoration between
participants are weaker (Crawford & Newburn, 2013; Daly & Hayes, 2002).
While procedural elements of RJ tend to be higher than conventional court
processes, a smaller number of young people perceive RJ meetings to be unfair or
lacking legitimacy (Barnes et al., 2015; Scheuerman & Matthews, 2014). One reason for
this is experiences of negative shaming, discussed above, and when offenders feel
negatively shamed there are also lower perceptions of procedural justice (Barnes et al.,
2015). Also, while RJ is in principle a voluntary option for offenders, in some cases young
people are or feel coerced into participating (Beckett et al., 2005). In such cases
perceptions of coercion may undermine the procedural justice elements of RJ meetings.
Research on trauma provides another reason why some young people may not
perceive RJ meetings as fair or legitimate. “After facing an ongoing trauma, children
sometimes do not display ‘overt diagnosable disorders,’ yet they ‘profoundly distrust
people, expect betrayal, and lose faith that life holds any justice or meaning (Williams &
Sommer, 2002, p. 227)” (as cited in Faust & Katchen, 2004, p. 427). While there is no
research on the effects of trauma on offender perceptions of procedural justice, some
empirical research has found negative emotionality in offenders may “override”
perceptions of procedural fairness in RJ meetings. Scheuerman and Matthews (2014, p.
870) analysed offender experiences of procedural justice and reintegrative shaming in
the RISE studies, finding “Negative emotionality emerges as a key personality trait that
affects how procedurally just offenders find these conferences.” Negative emotionality

9
can also be an effect of trauma, and is also linked to increased rates of offending,
substance abuse, and risky behaviours in people with PTSD (Cauffman et al., 1998; Jakšić
et al., 2012).
Negative emotionality and deep distrust of others present potential problems
for RJ meetings. These may impact the ability of young people to engage with or cue
into interactional demonstrations of respect and fairness seen by others as positive and
prosocial. Young people may also bring a sense of inherent injustice and distrust of
others into the RJ meeting, sometimes referred to as one aspect of “defiance” in RJ and
criminological literatures (Hipple et al., 2014). Defiance has been found to be an effect
of trauma in some young people (Ford et al., 2012). As Walgrave notes (2011, p. 128)
defiance is inhibitive to RJ processes and may result in “greater dismay and additional
indignation in the victim and others, provoking escalation of the conflict, stigmatization,
and secondary victimization.”
Behavioural Change and Trauma in Young People
Some RJ programs ask young people to take responsibility not only for harms
they have caused, but for future behaviours. This generally happens in two ways. Young
people may be asked as part of an RJ agreement to address and undertake appropriate
therapeutic or counselling programs related to their offending, for example drug and
alcohol treatment or anger management. In some RJ programs, a young person’s
agreement may also include court requirements to not reoffend.
Normative approaches to behavioural changes such as those used in RJ have
historically viewed antisocial behaviour as a wilful choice or poor decision that can be
remedied though targeted interventions, social support, and encouragement to take
responsibility for harms caused to others. This does work for many young people, and
RJ interventions perform no worse and often better than conventional court sanctions
in reducing reoffending (Piggott & Wood, 2019). However, research on young people
with trauma histories suggests there may be limits to short-term behavioural changes
following participation in RJ.
Effective treatment approaches for post-traumatic distress focus first and
foremost on the well-being of the young person. This begins with addressing their
immediate safety and acute social needs, then their immediate relationships, and then
addressing their trauma and ongoing distress (Bath, 2008). However, this is difficult for
young people who may not be able to find safe and secure places, extract themselves
from harmful and traumatising relationships, and obtain sufficient social and
therapeutic support – all of which are more pronounced in the lives of young offenders
(Fritzon et al., 2021).
Moreover, young people who live in communities with high rates of violence
demonstrate increased rates of trauma and post-traumatic distress (Rosenthal, 2000;
Sinha & Rosenberg, 2013), as do social and cultural groups with collective and often
intergenerational histories of oppression and social marginalisation (Mohatt et al., 2014;
Sotero, 2006). In these contexts, Ginwright (2018, p. 2) notes “current formulations of
trauma informed care presume that the trauma is an individual experience, rather than
a collective one.” This proposes challenges for RJ approaches that tend to individualise
offending behaviours and “responsibilise” young people without sufficient attention to
and support for existing family, health and mental health, educational, and other social
issues in their lives (Gray, 2005; Muncie, 2006).

10
These social realities manifest psychologically and emotionally in some young
people in what is called “futurelessness.” Young people may not expect to live long into
adulthood, get a job or career, have a family of their own, or become an accepted
member of society (Kerig et al., 2018). In cases of abuse, neglect, proximity to violence,
loss of caregivers – and combinations thereof – young people can internalise a deep
belief that decisions they make, good or bad, have little bearing on what their life will
look like tomorrow, next month, or next year. In this context, risk-taking, self-harming,
and antisocial behaviours may be used by young people to regulate or distract
themselves from adverse trauma effects (Contractor et al., 2017), or as attempts to take
back a sense of control in their own lives that have been lost in trauma-inducing events
(Ardino, 2012). Young people may also use alcohol or drugs to alleviate post-traumatic
distress (Ouimette & Brown, 2003).
In such cases behavioural changes in young people may be difficult without
effective redress of the trauma events and corresponding behavioural, cognitive, and
emotional responses that function to mitigate or alleviate post-traumatic distress.
Several evidence-based approaches currently exist, which are beyond the scope of this
paper (see Morina et al., 2016). However, these take time and often require significant
support, particularly in cases of CPTSD. Indeed, while there is an abundance of research
that correlates trauma (especially CPTSD) with antisocial and self-harming behaviours,
there is a paucity of evidence on the ability of trauma treatment to reduce reoffending
in the short term. Effective treatment or redress of trauma is not a cure to reducing
reoffending, within RJ or any other type of intervention.
Towards a Trauma-Informed Restorative Justice for Youth Offenders?
In this paper I have attempted to show how trauma histories in young people
may explain some variation in RJ process and outcomes hitherto ignored in existing
research. Given the known prevalence and impacts of trauma for young people, the
question is likely rather how much a role trauma and post-traumatic distress plays in
these variations. The best-guess answer is this depends on the nature of the RJ program
and the young people that participate. For programs where RJ is used as a diversionary
mechanism for first time offenders, this is likely lower than in programs and jurisdictions
where RJ is used for more serious and repeat offending or within communities with
higher rates of violence or collective social marginalisation.
v
Emerging literature has generally taken the position RJ can function as a trauma-
informed practice for offenders. In the context of youth justice, however, there are
several issues. Primarily, trauma in young people is often undiagnosed. Children and
adolescents frequently do not disclose traumatic events out of shame or fear, especially
in cases involving abuse or neglect from parents and caregivers. Young people may also
be normalised to such events as to not see them as remarkable. Post-traumatic stress
responses are also sometimes mischaracterized as wilful or wanton offending, or
misdiagnosed as conduct disorder or oppositional defiance disorder (Bath, 2008).
RJ research and practices have also ignored clinical, epidemiological, and
treatment research on trauma in offenders until recently. As such, there are substantial
evidence and “best-practice” gaps between trauma-informed practices and RJ practices
regarding the needs of young people. Historically, RJ theory and practice has framed the
needs of offenders (including young people) around accountability, active responsibility,
and reintegration. McCold (2000, p. 8), for example, argues:

11
Offenders need to be held accountable . . . need to develop empathy by learning
how others were affected, and be encouraged to express and stay connected to
the regain a sense of self worth, be reconciled with their family group, and to
make right the wrong by behaving responsibly toward the victim and their own
community of care.
While these are important needs, they may not be primary needs of young
people with trauma histories, particularly complex trauma. There is wide agreement in
treatment literature on the need for young people to have spaces where they feel safe,
are able to develop trusting relationships with others, in particular caregivers or
mentors; learn how to better regulate their emotions and impulses; and be provided
with opportunity to work therapeutically and socially on addressing the causes and
impacts of trauma (Bath, 2008; Branson et al., 2017).
Given the flexibility and participant-driven justice outcomes inherent to RJ
processes, it is tempting to see RJ meetings as such a space, certainly compared to
conventional court practices. This is the view of Randall and Haskell (2013, p. 526), for
example, who have suggested “a trauma-informed model of restorative justice allows
specific attention to whatever risks are present for that particular offender . . . for
example, substance abuse or unresolved child abuse . . . [allowing] for greater tailoring
and nuance in responding to what offenders need in order to take responsibility and
make change.”
Yet using RJ meetings towards such goals in youth justice settings raises several
thorny issues. There is an assumption that RJ meetings can help meet the needs of young
people with trauma when these needs may not even be clear. Yet it is not the role of
facilitators, victims, and other parties present in RJ meetings to make assessments of
such needs, nor are they likely to have the training, experience, or capacity to do so.
There is also the problem that raising or addressing trauma in an RJ meeting may
unwittingly put the young person at further risk, especially where parents or caregivers
who often attend such meetings as “supporters” may also be a primary cause of trauma
in cases of abuse or neglect.
Indeed, the question of whether a young person’s trauma history should be
provided to victims and others in the room is a difficult one. Who gets to decide whether
this information is shared or not? Should young people be expected to talk about their
trauma or its “root causes” with people they do not know? Trauma is often rooted in
deeply personal and shameful events in young people’s lives. Will they feel coerced to
share this information within a “trauma-informed” setting as part of making things right
to victims? This last question is particularly problematic given that young people
sometimes feel coerced or unclear about the voluntariness of their participation in RJ
(Suzuki & Wood, 2017).
Putting offender trauma on the table in an RJ meeting also poses risks of
stigmatising or pathologising the young person for their “trauma deficits” (Ginwright,
2018). Discussing trauma in the context of wrongdoing in an RJ meeting does not mean
the “root causes” can easily be addressed, particularly where as Ginwright (2018, p. 2)
notes, “trauma informed care requires that we treat trauma in people but provides very
little insight into how we might address the root causes of trauma in neighborhoods,
families, and schools.”
Using RJ meetings as a trauma-informed practice for offenders also assumes
victims and other parties are willing or able to “tailor” a response to the needs of the

12
young person. This ignores a primary function of RJ as meeting victim needs and
interests, and not simply turning victims into therapeutic agents for young people
(Newbury, 2008). Research on RJ already provides examples where undo focus is given
to the rehabilitative needs of the offender, at the expense of victims (Choi et al., 2013;
Hoyle et al., 2002). Focussing on an offender’s trauma may provide more flexibility and
nuance compared to conventional court sanctions, but it conversely risks turning the
meeting into a therapy session focused largely on the young person. It also assumes that
victims accept and “believe” in trauma, and presents further risks to young people when
this is not the case and victims may challenge or dismiss trauma as an excuse or
justification for offending.
Returning to Gustafson’s (2018) study mentioned above, RJ was beneficial and
therapeutic for most adult offenders with trauma histories. It helped them take
responsibility for and better explain their harmful actions to victims, most of whom in
turn benefited emotionally and psychologically from their participation in RJ. This is an
important study that demonstrates clear benefits for using RJ in cases of offender
trauma – namely at the point where offenders have developed ability to recognise
trauma as playing a role in their harmful behaviours, and where they are in turn
sufficiently capable of taking responsibility and making amends for these harms. Indeed,
RJ seems to have worked well between participants in Gustafson’s (2018) study for
normative reasons, where offenders were able to demonstrate sufficient accountability
to victims and take more “active” responsibility towards repairing harms they had
caused.
This is a much different scenario than attempting to use RJ get to “root causes”
in offenders with trauma histories, or tailor RJ meeting outcomes to specific needs of
young people with post-traumatic distress. As Gustafson (2018, p. 411) notes in his
study, positive outcomes for offenders involved intensive screening and preparation,
including “sufficient time to do all of the preparatory, face-to-face facilitated
dialogue/mediation work and aftercare involved in producing the most beneficial
outcomes.” Gustafson (2018: p. 411) thus cautious against “systems which impose time-
frames for the accomplishment of objectives in the realm of offender treatment and
victim trauma recovery,” which he argues present “tremendous potential for creating
additional significant harms.”
Moreover, the offenders in Gustafson’s (2018) study were adults, many of whom
had spent significant time in prison and had engaged in different forms of therapeutic
or self-work related to their offending. For most youth offenders that participate in RJ,
however, meetings happen within months, not years after the offense. Unlike the
intensive screening in Gustafson’s (2018) study that included assessment of offender’s
adverse childhood experiences and relevant trauma histories, identification of trauma
and post-traumatic distress in youth offenders is lacking in most youth justice systems.
As such, engagement in trauma-informed therapeutic practices is very low, when these
are available at all for youth offenders.
Implications for Policy, Programs, and Practice
While there are best practice guidelines for trauma-informed care, and also for
restorative justice meetings, significant gaps in theory and practice exist between the
two. It should not be assumed these can be easily blended into a “trauma informed”
approach to RJ without attention to issues raised above (and undoubtedly other issues
not anticipated). There are, however, several policy, program, and practice implications

13
that follow from the growing recognition of the prevalence and role of trauma and post-
traumatic distress in young people who offend and may participate in RJ.
Policy Implications
In terms of policy, there is large consensus trauma screening should be routine
in youth justice systems (Branson et al., 2017). Such screening is a fundamental first step
for development, provision, and coordination of services for young people with trauma
histories, but it also has specific implications for RJ programs and practices I discuss
below.
The other implication is the need to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14,
in countries where it is not. Children and younger adolescents that enter the youth
justice system frequently demonstrate acute therapeutic and social needs. Using RJ as
part of a non-criminal approach to harms caused by young people can integrate
normative responses to such behaviours into more effective therapeutic, wrap-around,
and social services less likely to stigmatise or cumulatively disadvantage young people.
This is akin to a more public health approach to RJ in lieu of a criminal justice approach,
with RJ being used to better meet victim and community needs while also reinvesting
into more significant services for young people, their families, and their communities.
Such approaches are resource and time-intensive, but also cost-effective in the long run
compared to the impacts of involvement in the youth justice system and particularly
youth custody (WSIPP, 2020). Increasing the age of criminal responsibility can also
further encourage the use of RJ practices in schools, which are a primary source of
referrals to the youth justice system. Limited studies have documented successful uses
of such practices in lieu of referrals to youth justice, with a reduction in harms and
increase in safety for schools (Anfara Jr et al., 2013).
Program Implications
Trauma-screening and provision of appropriate services should be a system-level
approach to the wellbeing of young people, not the responsibility of RJ programs. Ideally
this takes the form of increased systems integration and coordination between child,
family, social, and youth justice services – with information shared and available to RJ
programs to inform screening and suitability criteria for youth involvement in RJ
meetings.
Unfortunately, such screening and integration does not currently exist in most
jurisdictions. Rather, RJ programs are often siloed within youth justice systems, or
operate as community-based or non-profit service providers. For these reasons, Suzuki
and Wood (2017, p. 11) have suggested a need for RJ programs to include screening not
only for common criteria such as acknowledgement of guilt or seriousness of offence,
but also to assess “whether youth offenders are cognitively and developmentally
mature enough in terms of comprehensibility, emotionality and communication
capacity.”
At the program level, such screening is more practical and feasible than
comprehensive trauma or other needs and risk-based screening tools, particularly
where most RJ programs already utilise some form of screening and/or pre-meeting
preparation. Following this, trauma-informed approaches for RJ programs and
facilitators should include assessment of whether an RJ meeting may pose further harms
to victims and young people with trauma histories. In some cases, this may result in
decisions to provide treatment and social support prior to RJ, or to screen the young

14
person out of RJ until and if they are able to demonstrate sufficient cognitive and
emotional capacities. Alternatively, in some cases the use of shuttle-mediation may be
more appropriate, particularly in cases where young people wish to participate in RJ but
have significant anxiety or other effects of post-traumatic distress likely to impede face-
to-face RJ processes.
Such screening is also important because young people with trauma histories
may not be impeded in their ability to understand, communicate, and demonstrate
accountability and remorse for harms they have caused. Trauma research demonstrates
numerous possible deleterious effects discussed in this paper, but also shows marked
variability of effects in young people who experience potentially trauma-inducing
events. Stated otherwise, trauma histories should not be prohibitive to participation in
RJ, but evidence of trauma and post-traumatic distress in young people may be.
Practice Implications
Finally, there are several practice implications for RJ meetings that may proceed
where there is evidence or indication of trauma or post-traumatic distress in young
people. I mention these cautiously, as there is currently no clear “best practice” for
trauma-informed approaches to using RJ in youth justice settings. I also note the need
for quality empirical research in this area. This is especially important for racial, ethnic,
and First Nations young people that are woefully overrepresented in youth justice
systems in most western countries. Restorative justice has often not taken into account
different and distinct cultural needs of young people, and in some cases this has
contributed to further harms and poor outcomes (Moyle & Tauri, 2016; Willis & Hoyle,
2022). Any “trauma informed” approach to RJ may be prohibitive to young people when
they are further marginalised or when corresponding cultural supports and frameworks
are not integrated into RJ processes and outcomes. In such cases, there should be use
of appropriate facilitators and (when possible) supporters that hold sufficient cultural
capital for young people and their families. Facilitators should also have culturally
specific knowledge of shame and shame management, demonstration of respect and
fairness (including cultural protocols), and appropriate ways for the young person to
make amends.
In all cases, extensive pre-meeting preparation is vital. There should be clear
discussion with the young person and appropriate supporters as to what they wish to
share in their story. If the young person does not wish to bring up past traumatic events
or ongoing distress, this should be respected by the facilitator and supporters.
Alternately, if the young person indicates they may bring up such issues as relevant to
their story, there should be clear discussion that other participants (especially victims
and victim-supporters) may be supportive, but may also challenge the young person for
using trauma to justify or excuse the harms they have caused.
For these and other reasons, restorative practitioners that work with vulnerable
young people in settings such as education often use rehearsals as part of pre-meeting
preparation. There is also limited research suggesting rehearsals are sometimes used in
RJ meetings for youth justice (Bruce, 2013), although existing literature suggests this is
not as common. Rehearsals are used to walk the young person through what the
meeting will look like, what will be expected of them, and what challenges or distressing
situations may arise (Burnett & Thorsborne, 2015). Pre-meeting preparation can also be
used to discuss and work with the young person on what they most want to
communicate to victims and others, and to prepare short scripts prior to the meeting to

15
help them alleviate anxiety about being put on the spot or not knowing what to say or
how to act.
In terms of the RJ meeting itself, it may be useful to alter or amend the more
traditional one-to-two-hour RJ meeting format. In RJ meetings used for domestic and
family violence it is increasingly common for facilitators to employ designated breaks
throughout the meeting to check in and debrief with participants, especially victims
(Jeffries et al., 2021). Using a more punctuated structure in cases of young people with
trauma histories can similarly allow for check in with both victims and young people,
address issues that may be arising, and make changes as necessary to ensure the
continued wellbeing of all participants.
The use of dual facilitators is also becoming more common in cases of serious
violence, including domestic and family violence and sexual violence. There are benefits
to using two facilitators, including having facilitators trained in offender and victim-
based needs that can work more directly with each party prior to the RJ meeting, and
enhanced tracking of the well-being of participants throughout the meeting. In cases of
trauma in young people, a two-facilitator model may be useful to provide similar
safeguards for potential distress or problems for both parties, better ensure the meeting
does not veer into undo focus on offender needs, or conversely result in an unsafe space
for young people with trauma histories.
These suggestions for program and practice implications are drawn from a “do
no further harm” principle. Yet decisions to amend, delay, forego, or utilise RJ
approaches such as shuttle mediation may not work as well for victims in some cases.
However, a trauma-informed approach to RJ must first account for and attend to the
reality that some youth offenders are also victims of violence, abuse, neglect and other
harms that result in trauma and post-traumatic distress. Ample evidence shows RJ works
well when young people can cognitively and emotionally understand the effects of their
actions on others, and actively participate in acknowledging and repairing these harms.
Before RJ can be a “trauma-informed” practice, however, it must take stock of the
abundance of clinical and epidemiological literature that suggests some young people
with trauma histories may not be good candidates for RJ meetings. Others may have
“victim needs” of their own that must be recognised and addressed in ways RJ meetings
are not currently well equipped to address.
References
Abram, K. M., Teplin, L. A., Charles, D. R., Longworth, S. L., McClelland, G. M., & Dulcan, M. K.
(2004). Posttraumatic stress disorder and trauma in youth in juvenile detention.
Archives of general psychiatry, 61(4), 403-410.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub.
Anfara Jr, V. A., Evans, K. R., & Lester, J. N. (2013). Restorative justice in education: What we
know so far. Middle School Journal, 44(5), 57-63.
Angel, C. M. (2005). Crime Victims Meet Their Offenders: Testing the Impact of Restorative
Justice Conferences on Victim's Post-traumatic Stress Symptoms University of
Pennsylvania Philadelphia].
Angel, C. M., Sherman, L., Strang, H., Ariel, B., Bennett, S., Inkpen, N., Keane, A., & Richmond,
T. S. (2014). Short-term effects of restorative justice conferences on post-traumatic
stress symptoms among robbery and burglary victims: a randomized controlled trial.

16
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(3), 291-307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-
014-9200-0
Ardino, V. (2012). Offending behaviour: the role of trauma and PTSD. Eur J Psychotraumatol, 3.
https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v3i0.18968
Barnes, G. C., Hyatt, J. M., Angel, C. M., Strang, H., & Sherman, L. (2015). Are restorative justice
conferences more fair than criminal courts? Comparing levels of observed procedural
justice in the reintegrative shaming experiments (RISE). Criminal Justice Policy Review,
26(2), 103-130.
Bath, H. (2008). The three pillars of trauma-informed care. Reclaiming children and youth,
17(3), 17-21.
Bazemore, G. (2001). Young people, trouble, and crime: Restorative justice as a normative
theory of informal social control and social support. Youth & Society, 33(2), 199-226.
Bazemore, G., & Bell, D. (2004). What is the appropriate relationship between restorative
justice and treatment. Critical issues in restorative justice, 119-132.
Beckett, H., Campbell, C., O’Mahony, D., Jackson, J., & Doak, J. (2005). Interim evaluation of
the Northern Ireland youth conferencing scheme. Belfast: Northern Ireland Office.
Bennett, D. C., & Kerig, P. K. (2014). Investigating the construct of trauma‐related acquired
callousness among delinquent youth: Differences in emotion processing. Journal of
traumatic stress, 27(4), 415-422.
Berman, R. A. (2004). Language development across childhood and adolescence (Vol. 3). John
Benjamins Publishing.
Bolitho, J. (2012). Restorative justice: The ideals and realities of conferencing for young people.
Critical Criminology, 20(1), 61-78.
Bottoms, A. (2003). Some sociological reflections on restorative justice. In A. Von Hirsch, J.
Roberts, A. Bottoms, K. Roach, & M. Schiff (Eds.), Restorative justice and criminal
justice: Competing or reconcilable paradigms (pp. 79-114). Hart Publishing
Boutellier, H. (2012). Victimalization and restorative justice: moral backgrounds and political
consequences. In Restorative justice and the law (pp. 39-50). Willan.
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge University Press.
Braithwaite, J. (2001). Restorative justice and a new criminal law of substance abuse. Youth &
Society, 33(2), 227-248.
Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and therapeutic jurisprudence. CRIMINAL LAW
BULLETIN-BOSTON-, 38(2), 244-262.
Branson, C. E., Baetz, C. L., Horwitz, S. M., & Hoagwood, K. E. (2017). Trauma-informed juvenile
justice systems: A systematic review of definitions and core components. Psychological
Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 9(6), 635.
Bruce, J. (2013). Understanding ‘back stage’and ‘front stage’work in restorative justice
conferences: The benefits of using ethnographic techniques. Current Issues in Criminal
Justice, 25(1), 517-526.
Burnett, N., & Thorsborne, M. (2015). Restorative practice and special needs: a practical guide
to working restoratively with young people. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Cauffman, E., Feldman, S., Waterman, J., & Steiner, H. (1998). Posttraumatic stress disorder
among female juvenile offenders. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry, 37(11), 1209-
1216.
Choi, J. J., Bazemore, G., & Gilbert, M. J. (2012). Review of research on victims' experiences in
restorative justice: Implications for youth justice. Children and Youth Services Review,
34(1), 35-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.08.011
Choi, J. J., Gilbert, M. J., & Green, D. L. (2013). Patterns of victim marginalization in victim-
offender mediation: Some lessons learned. Crime, Law and Social Change, 59, 113-132.
Choi, J. J., & Severson, M. (2009). “What! What kind of apology is this?”: The nature of apology
in victim offender mediation. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(7), 813-820.

17
Contractor, A. A., Weiss, N. H., Dranger, P., Ruggero, C., & Armour, C. (2017). PTSD's risky
behavior criterion: Relation with DSM-5 PTSD symptom clusters and psychopathology.
Psychiatry research, 252, 215-222.
Cook, A., Spinazzola, J., Ford, J., Lanktree, C., Blaustein, M., Cloitre, M., DeRosa, R., Hubbard,
R., Kagan, R., & Liautaud, J. (2017). Complex trauma in children and adolescents.
Psychiatric annals, 35(5), 390-398.
Crawford, A., & Newburn, T. (2013). Youth offending and restorative justice. Willan.
Cuff, B. M., Brown, S. J., Taylor, L., & Howat, D. J. (2016). Empathy: A review of the concept.
Emotion review, 8(2), 144-153.
Dalgleish, T., Moradi, A., Taghavi, M., Neshat-Doost, H., & Yule, W. (2001). An experimental
investigation of hypervigilance for threat in children and adolescents with post-
traumatic stress disorder. Psychological medicine, 31(3), 541-547.
Daly, K. (2002). Restorative justice: The real story. Punishment & Society, 4(1), 55-79.
Daly, K. (2003). Mind the gap: Restorative justice in theory and practice. Restorative justice and
criminal justice: Competing or reconcilable paradigms, 219-236.
Daly, K. (2013). A tale of two studies: Restorative justice from a victim’s perspective. New
directions in restorative justice, 177-198.
Daly, K. (2016). What is restorative justice? Fresh answers to a vexed question. Victims &
Offenders, 11(1), 9-29.
Daly, K., & Hayes, H. (2002). Restorative justice and conferencing. The Cambridge handbook of
Australian criminology, 294-312.
Dierkhising, C. B., Ko, S. J., Woods-Jaeger, B., Briggs, E. C., Lee, R., & Pynoos, R. S. (2013).
Trauma histories among justice-involved youth: Findings from the National Child
Traumatic Stress Network. European journal of psychotraumatology, 4(1), 20274.
Dignan, J. (1992). Repairing the damage: can reparation be made to work in the service of
diversion? The British Journal of Criminology, 32(4), 453-472.
Faust, J., & Katchen, L. B. (2004). Treatment of children with complicated posttraumatic stress
reactions. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 41(4), 426-437.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204.41.4.426
Ford, J. D. (2012). Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Among Youth Involved in Juvenile Justice. In
Handbook of Juvenile Forensic Psychology and Psychiatry (pp. 485-501).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0905-2_31
Ford, J. D., Chapman, J., Connor, D. F., & Cruise, K. R. (2012). Complex Trauma and Aggression
in Secure Juvenile Justice Settings. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 39(6), 694-724.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854812436957
Fox, B. H., Perez, N., Cass, E., Baglivio, M. T., & Epps, N. (2015). Trauma changes everything:
Examining the relationship between adverse childhood experiences and serious,
violent and chronic juvenile offenders. Child abuse & neglect, 46, 163-173.
Frick, P. J., Cornell, A. H., Bodin, S. D., Dane, H. E., Barry, C. T., & Loney, B. R. (2003). Callous-
unemotional traits and developmental pathways to severe conduct problems.
Developmental psychology, 39(2), 246.
Fritzon, K., Miller, S., Bargh, D., Hollows, K., Osborne, A., & Howlett, A. (2021). Understanding
the relationships between trauma and criminogenic risk using the risk-need-
responsivity model. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 30(3), 294-323.
Ginwright, S. (2018). The future of healing: Shifting from trauma informed care to healing
centered engagement. Occasional Paper, 25, 25-32.
Gray, P. (2005). The Politics of Risk and Young Offenders’ Experiences of Social Exclusion and
Restorative Justice. The British Journal of Criminology, 45(6), 938-957.
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azi018
Gustafson, D. (2018). Encountering 'The Other': victim offender dialogue in serious crime KU
Leuven]. Leuven.
Harris, N. (2006). Reintegrative shaming, shame and criminal justice.

18
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young
American children. Paul H Brookes Publishing.
Hipple, N. K., Gruenewald, J., & McGarrell, E. F. (2014). Restorativeness, procedural justice, and
defiance as predictors of reoffending of participants in family group conferences.
Crime & Delinquency, 60(8), 1131-1157.
Hoyle, C., Young, R. P., & Hill, R. (2002). Proceed with caution: An evaluation of the Thames
Valley Police initiative in restorative cautioning.
Hudson, J., Morris, A., Maxwell, G., & Galaway, B. (1996). Family group conferences:
Perspectives on policy and practice. Federation Press Annandale.
Jakšić, N., Brajković, L., Ivezić, E., Topić, R., & Jakovljević, M. (2012). The role of personality
traits in posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Psychiatria Danubina, 24(3.), 256-266.
Jeffries, S., Wood, W. R., & Russell, T. (2021). Adult Restorative Justice and Gendered Violence:
Practitioner and Service Provider Viewpoints from Queensland, Australia. Laws, 10(1).
https://doi.org/10.3390/laws10010013
Jones, C. M. (2014). Why persistent offenders cannot be shamed into behaving. Journal of
Offender Rehabilitation, 53(3), 153-170.
Kahn, R. E., Frick, P. J., Youngstrom, E. A., Kogos Youngstrom, J., Feeny, N. C., & Findling, R. L.
(2013). Distinguishing primary and secondary variants of callous-unemotional traits
among adolescents in a clinic-referred sample. Psychological assessment, 25(3), 966-
978.
Kenney, J. S., & Clairmont, D. (2009). Using the victim role as both sword and shield: The
interactional dynamics of restorative justice sessions. Journal of contemporary
ethnography, 38(3), 279-307.
Kerig, P. K., Bennett, D. C., Thompson, M., & Becker, S. P. (2012). “Nothing really matters”:
Emotional numbing as a link between trauma exposure and callousness in delinquent
youth. Journal of traumatic stress, 25(3), 272-279.
Kerig, P. K., Fedorowicz, A. E., Brown, C. A., & Warren, M. (2018). Assessment and intervention
for PTSD in children exposed to violence. In Children exposed to domestic violence:
Current issues in research, intervention, prevention, and policy development (pp. 161-
184). Routledge.
Kerig, P. K., Ward, R. M., Vanderzee, K. L., & Arnzen Moeddel, M. (2009). Posttraumatic stress
as a mediator of the relationship between trauma and mental health problems among
juvenile delinquents. Journal of youth and adolescence, 38(9), 1214-1225.
Kim, H. J., & Gerber, J. (2010). Evaluating the process of a restorative justice conference: An
examination of factors that lead to reintegrative shaming. Asia Pacific Journal of Police
& Criminal Justice, 8(2), 1-20.
Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A
meta-analysis. The prison journal, 85(2), 127-144.
Lloyd, A., & Borrill, J. (2020). Examining the effectiveness of restorative justice in reducing
victims’ post-traumatic stress. Psychological injury and law, 13(1), 77-89.
Maglione, G. (2017). Imaging victims, offenders and communities. An investigation into the
representations of the crime stakeholders within restorative justice and their cultural
context. International journal of law, crime and justice, 50, 22-33.
Maxwell, G., & Morris, A. (2012). The role of shame, guilt and remorse in restorative justice
processes for young people. In Restorative justice: Theoretical foundations (pp. 289-
306). Willan.
McCold, P. (2000). Toward a mid-range theory of restorative criminal justice: A reply to the
Maximalist model. Contemporary Justice Review, 3(4), 357-414.
McLaughlin, K. A., Colich, N. L., Rodman, A. M., & Weissman, D. G. (2020). Mechanisms linking
childhood trauma exposure and psychopathology: a transdiagnostic model of risk and
resilience. BMC medicine, 18(1), 1-11.
McMackin, R. A., Leisen, M. B., Sattler, L., Krinsley, K., & Riggs, D. S. (2002). Preliminary
Development of Trauma-Focused Treatment Groups for Incarcerated Juvenile

19
Offenders. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 6(1), 175-199.
https://doi.org/10.1300/J146v06n01_09
McWilliams, K., Harris, L. S., & Goodman, G. S. (2014). Child maltreatment, trauma‐related
psychopathology, and eyewitness memory in children and adolescents. Behavioral
Sciences & the Law, 32(6), 702-717.
Mohatt, N. V., Thompson, A. B., Thai, N. D., & Tebes, J. K. (2014). Historical trauma as public
narrative: A conceptual review of how history impacts present-day health. Social
science & medicine, 106, 128-136.
Morina, N., Koerssen, R., & Pollet, T. V. (2016). Interventions for children and adolescents with
posttraumatic stress disorder: A meta-analysis of comparative outcome studies.
Clinical psychology review, 47, 41-54.
Moyle, P., & Tauri, J. M. (2016). Māori, family group conferencing and the mystifications of
restorative justice. Victims & Offenders, 11(1), 87-106.
Muncie, J. (2006). Governing young people: Coherence and contradiction in contemporary
youth justice. Critical social policy, 26(4), 770-793.
Newbury, A. (2008). Youth Crime: Whose Responsibility? Journal of Law and Society, 35(1),
131-149. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2008.00418.x
Newbury, A. (2011). ‘I would have been able to hear what they think’: Tensions in achieving
restorative outcomes in the English youth justice system. Youth Justice, 11(3), 250-265.
Nooner, K. B., Linares, L. O., Batinjane, J., Kramer, R. A., Silva, R., & Cloitre, M. (2012). Factors
related to posttraumatic stress disorder in adolescence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse,
13(3), 153-166.
O'Mahony, D., & Doak, J. (2017). Reimagining restorative justice: Agency and accountability in
the criminal process. Bloomsbury Publishing.
O’brien, E., Konrath, S. H., Grühn, D., & Hagen, A. L. (2013). Empathic concern and perspective
taking: Linear and quadratic effects of age across the adult life span. Journals of
Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 68(2), 168-175.
Oudshoorn, J. (2015). Trauma-informed rehabilitation and restorative justice. In T. Gavrielides
(Ed.), The psychology of restorative justice: Managing the power within (pp. 159-182).
Ashgate
Oudshoorn, J. (2016). Trauma-informed juvenile justice in the United States. Canadian Scholars’
Press.
Ouimette, P. E., & Brown, P. J. (2003). Trauma and substance abuse: Causes, consequences,
and treatment of comorbid disorders. American Psychological Association.
Piggott, E., & Wood, W. (2019). Does Restorative Justice Reduce Recidivism: Assessing
Evidence and Claims About Restorative Justice and Reoffending. Routledge
International Handbook of Restorative Justice, 387-404.
Poulson, B. (2003). A third voice: A review of empirical research on the psychological outcomes
of restorative justice. Utah L. Rev., 167.
Presser, L., & Van Voorhis, P. (2002). Values and evaluation: Assessing processes and outcomes
of restorative justice programs. Crime & Delinquency, 48(1), 162-188.
Randall, M., & Haskell, L. (2013). Trauma-informed approaches to law: Why restorative justice
must understand trauma and psychological coping. Dalhousie LJ, 36, 501.
Riley, M., & Hayes, H. (2018). Youth restorative justice conferencing: facilitator’s language–
help or hindrance? Contemporary Justice Review, 21(1), 99-113.
Rosenthal, B. S. (2000). Exposure to community violence in adolescence: Trauma symptoms.
Adolescence, 35(138), 271.
Rossner, M., & Bruce, J. (2018). Trajectories and typologies of pre-sentence restorative justice
rituals. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 51(4), 502-518.
Rozzell, L. (2013). The role of family engagement in creating trauma-informed juvenile justice
systems. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Child Traumatic Stress.

20
Scheuerman, H. L., & Matthews, S. K. (2014). The importance of perceptions in restorative
justice conferences: The influence of offender personality traits on procedural justice
and shaming. Justice quarterly, 31(5), 852-881.
Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Chapman, B., Dignan, J., Howes, M., Johnstone, J.,
Robinson, G., & Sorsby, A. (2007). Restorative justice: the views of victims and
offenders. Ministry of Justice Research Series, 3(07).
Sherman, L., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative justice: The evidence. Smith Institute.
Sherman, L., & Strang, H. (2015). Restorative Justice as Psychological Treatment: Healing
Victims, Reintegrating Offenders. In D. Crighton & G. Towl (Eds.), Forensic psychology
(pp. 385-415). Wiley.
Sherman, L., Strang, H., & Woods, D. J. (2000). Recidivism patterns in the Canberra
reintegrative shaming experiments (RISE). Centre for Restorative Justice, Research
School of Social Sciences ….
Sinha, J. W., & Rosenberg, L. B. (2013). A critical review of trauma interventions and religion
among youth exposed to community violence. Journal of social service research, 39(4),
436-454.
Snow, P. (2009). Child maltreatment, mental health and oral language competence: Inviting
speech-language pathology to the prevention table. International Journal of Speech-
Language Pathology, 11(2), 95-103.
Snow, P. (2013). Restorative justice conferencing, oral language competence, and young
offenders: are these high-risk conversations? The Prevention Researcher, 20(1), 18-21.
Snow, P., & Powell, M. (2012). Youth (in) justice: Oral language competence in early life and
risk for engagement in antisocial behaviour in adolescence. Trends and Issues in Crime
and Criminal Justice(435), 1-6.
Snow, P., & Sanger, D. (2011). Restorative Justice conferencing and the youth offender:
exploring the role of oral language competence. Int J Lang Commun Disord, 46(3), 324-
333. https://doi.org/10.3109/13682822.2010.496763
Sotero, M. (2006). A conceptual model of historical trauma: Implications for public health
practice and research. Journal of health disparities research and practice, 1(1), 93-108.
Spinazzola, J., Ford, J., Zucker, M., van der Kolk, B., Silva, S., Smith, S., & Blaustein, M. (2005).
National survey of complex trauma exposure, outcome and intervention for children
and adolescents. Psychiatric annals, 35(5), 433-439.
Spratt, E. G., Friedenberg, S. L., Swenson, C. C., LaRosa, A., De Bellis, M. D., Macias, M. M.,
Summer, A. P., Hulsey, T. C., Runyan, D. K., & Brady, K. T. (2012). The effects of early
neglect on cognitive, language, and behavioral functioning in childhood. Psychology
(Irvine, Calif.), 3(2), 175.
Strang, H., Sherman, L., Mayo‐Wilson, E., Woods, D., & Ariel, B. (2013). Restorative justice
conferencing (RJC) using face‐to‐face meetings of offenders and victims: Effects on
offender recidivism and victim satisfaction. A systematic review. Campbell Systematic
Reviews, 9(1), 1-59.
Strang, H., & Sherman, L. W. (2003). Repairing the harm: Victims and restorative justice. Utah
L. Rev., 15.
Suzuki, M., & Wood, W. R. (2017). Is restorative justice conferencing appropriate for youth
offenders? Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18(4), 450-467.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817722188
Tyler, T. R., Sherman, L., Strang, H., Barnes, G. C., & Woods, D. (2007). Reintegrative shaming,
procedural Justice, and recidivism: The engagement of offenders' psychological
mechanisms in the Canberra RISE Drinking‐and‐Driving Experiment. Law & Society
Review, 41(3), 553-586.
Umbreit, M., Coates, R., & Kalanj, B. (1994). Victim meets offender: The impact of restorative
justice and mediation. Criminal Justice Press Monsey, NY.
van der Kolk, B. A., Pynoos, R. S., Cicchetti, D., Cloitre, M., D’Andrea, W., Ford, J. D., & Teicher,
M. (2009). Proposal to include a developmental trauma disorder diagnosis for children

21
and adolescents in DSM-V. Unpublished manuscript. Verfügbar unter: http://www.
cathymalchiodi. com/dtd_nctsn. pdf (Zugriff: 20.5. 2011).
Van Langen, M. A., Wissink, I. B., van Vugt, E. S., Van der Stouwe, T., & Stams, G. J. J. (2014).
The relation between empathy and offending: A meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent
Behavior, 19(2), 179-189.
Van Ness, D., & Strong, K. H. (2014). Restoring justice: An introduction to restorative justice.
Routledge.
Walgrave, L. (2011). Investigating the potentials of restorative justice practice. Wash. UJL &
Pol'y, 36, 91.
Williams, M. B., & Sommer, J. (2002). Simple and complex post-traumatic stress disorder. New
York: Haworth Maltreatment and Trauma Press.
Willis, R., & Hoyle, C. (2022). The Good, The Bad, and The Street: Does ‘street culture’affect
offender communication and reception in restorative justice? European Journal of
Criminology, 19(1), 118-138.
[Record #448 is using a reference type undefined in this output style.]
Yehuda, R., & LeDoux, J. (2007). Response variation following trauma: a translational
neuroscience approach to understanding PTSD. Neuron, 56(1), 19-32.
Zehr, H. (2008). Doing justice, healing trauma: The role of restorative justice in peacebuilding.
South Asian Journal of Peacebuilding, 1(1), 1-16.
i
Suttle mediation refers to facilitated dialogue where parties are not face to face, but in separate
locations. The facilitator “shuttles” back and forth between these locations (different rooms, online, or
via phone) to conduct the mediation or meeting.
ii
Processes refer to quality and nature of “dialogue, relationship building, and communication of moral
values”
(Presser & Van Voorhis, 2002, p. 67) that occur within an RJ meeting. Outcomes refer to measurement of
the effects of RJ meetings on participants, for example victim satisfaction with offender accountability,
participant’s views on procedural fairness and respect, or offender compliance with RJ agreements.
iii
For an overview of conferencing, VOM, and circles see Van Ness and Strong (2014).
iv
Gray’s (2005, pp. 947-948) research on a youth restorative justice in the UK found, for example,
“almost half of young offenders who participated in the programme lived in deprived households, just
over a quarter had experienced abuse, [and] a fifth had had their name placed on the child-protection
register.”
v
Fox et al. (2015, p. 164) note, “One of the most significant and recurring findings in the literature is that
[serious, violent, and chronic offenders] are disproportionately victims of trauma, abuse, neglect, and
maltreatment during childhood, as compared to the less severe or non-offending juvenile population.”